The average DH is a flawed concept

by RollingWave on Dec 7, 2008 6:36 AM EST Comment 21 comments

This is something I've been thinking, because the term "average DH" get's thrown around a lot , but the more I think about it, I realize there's a serious problem with that number .

I'll explain it in a very simple matter, below was the AL teams in 08 and their leader in DH games played last year.

ALE

TB: Floyd, 72

BOS: Ortiz, 108

NYY: Matsui: 66

TOR: Stairs 77

BAL: Huff: 108

ALC

CHW: Thome 139

Min: Kubel 77

CLE: Hafner 54

KC: Butler 82

DET: Sheffield 106

ALW

LAA: Anderson 59

Tex : Bradley 99

OAK: Thomas 59

SEA: Vidro 69

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The # is pretty obvious, there was only 3 teams that had guys with more than 100 games started at DH, (ok 4 if you count 99 game Bradley) and even then only Thome went signficantly over that mark. so yeah, last year in the AL, there was about *1* team out of 14 that had a true full time DH all season.

So what's the point? obviously where the other DH times go, it doesn't take a genius to realize that most AL team rotate their better players in the DH slot .

The problem? this "average DH" is in fact mostly # by guys who play most of their time in other positions, and while they're DHing, the guy who's taking their spot on the field tend to suck with the bat. that's what we're overlooking.

http://www.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080925&content_id=1455905&oid=36019&vkey=6

Let's just use the Yankees as a example, Steve Goldman noted that the Yankees DH was pretty decent last year at 282/.378/.461 , but Mr. Goldman miss the point, while Posada's DHing, Jose Molina is giving away automatic outs, while Jason Giambi is DHing, Wilson Betemit is sucking in the field, while Johnny Damon DHs, then usually it's something along the lines of Justin Christian or Brett Gardner.

This is my point, unless your team has a true full time DH like Jim Thome, then your "DH" isn't really "The DH" so to speak, but the bench guy that's inserted into the lineup in place of the regular that's DHing for the day. (unless of course, your using your bench guy as the DH like the Mariners . )

This sort of number would be really hard to compile , since we need to indentify who's actually replacing who, but if someone do compile such numbers, I highly suspect the "average DH" will look at lot more like "the average catcher" then "the average first baseman"

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting perspective. I'll have to think more about how you could calculate this.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is why you’re looking to find the average production from the DH spot. Often, we’re looking to compare players to other players, or to replacement-level, to find their relative values. And using the current average production of DHs or your modified version is still the wrong way to value DHs. Why? Because we KNOW DH is the easiest defensive position to play. And therefore it makes zero sense to expect less production from the DH spot than anywhere else. If you’re looking to value production compared to position played, you need to base the differences in position on defensive abilities, not on relative offensive performance. They will often match up relatively closely, but DH is one position where they don’t.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 7, 2008 9:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

In my eventually-to-be-released study

it’s hard to play DH then you think. Many have tried, but only a few can reach the heights of saving runs while DHing that guys like Brad Hawpe and Mike Jacobs could attain, if only they were given the chance…

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 7, 2008 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sounds interesting

and it makes intuitive sense to me. is it a mentality thing (at least partially)? what are some of the other things going on? or do i just have to wait?

a-rod is a traitor.

by larry on Dec 8, 2008 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

last year was a pretty bad year for DHs as a whole.

i wonder if the numbers were similar in prior years.

a-rod is a traitor.

by larry on Dec 7, 2008 11:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think one reason we don't see full-time, big-hit DHs is that teams are still struggling to understand the importance of fielding.

Manny still plays the field. So do Ibanez, Griffey, Abreu, and Dye, all guys who have been free agents. If teams are willing to pay them as field players, then smarter teams can’t sign them to contracts appropriate to DHing. I see that changing this off-season. To what degree, we’ll see.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 7, 2008 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

my recollection from The Book

is that there is evidence of a DH penalty; how much and how much for a particular player seems open to debate. from a quick look at manny, doesn’t seem to affect his bat. however, jermaine dye (who i doubt has played DH much to make a comparison interesting) has stated that he doesn’t like to DH. i suppose we could talk about whether a smarter team could convince a player that it’s smarter for them to DH but… at any rate, something else to think about with this.

a-rod is a traitor.

by larry on Dec 7, 2008 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

But eventually teams will learn that it’s just not worth playing a -15 run corner outfielder in the field. And so Dye, while he might not like to DH, will be forced to.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 7, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and he may suck more than a team expects at it.

a-rod is a traitor.

by larry on Dec 7, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

what i mean to say is that we need to realize if your not having a regular DH as a AL team, your real DH # often is a lot crappier than it appears.

of course, if say.. the Mariners DHed lawn dart Ibanez and kept say… Willie Bloomquist in LF it’s better than the other way around, but still, you STILL have Willie Bloomquist in your lineup either way, which is never good.

by RollingWave on Dec 7, 2008 1:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

And in the end

If you have say.. Manny as your regular DH and on a particular date you want to DH your regular LF, your still better off to just risk Manny in LF then your scrubby 5th OF.

by RollingWave on Dec 7, 2008 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Side adjustment

Offensive averages at other positions should be slightly higher if the DH average should be lower.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 7, 2008 4:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is there...

Such an adjustment for comparing a DH’s value to that of a position player?

by rivercityredbird on Dec 9, 2008 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Overall value? Sure.

The adjustments I use are:

CA: +1.25 wins
SS: +.75 wins
2B/3B/CF: +.25 wins
LF/RF: -.75 wins
1B: -1.25 wins
DH: -1.75 wins

All are per 700 PAs.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 9, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Overall Value?

Why is the DH value negative?
The DH lacks the ability to prevent runs via defense like position players.
In turn I assume this would create less ability to create wins.

Thanks for helping. I’m just a beginner .

by rivercityredbird on Dec 9, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I'm not sure what your asking.

That list is the bonus (or anti-bonus) that players at each position deserve to account for their defense when comparing offensive stats. For example, if Player X is a SS and is worth 3 WAR on offense, he’s 3.75 WAR overall (before accounting for fielding at SS) while Player Y, a 1B who is 3 WAR on offense is 1.25 WAR overall (before accounting for fielding at SS.

All those numbers average out to about zero. Playing a relatively tough position is worth extra credit, while playing an easy position is worth less credit.

If I’m totally missing your question, I apologize. Feel free to keep asking…

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 9, 2008 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

I understand the adjustment now.
Let me try clraifying.

If an adjustment scale is needed to consider defense is WAR based solely on offensive production?

by rivercityredbird on Dec 9, 2008 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

WAR should be based on EVERYTHING.

But you can refer to every piece of the puzzle in terms of wins. Usually offense is the only one compared to replacement-level and everything else relative to average. Although you can also compare offense to average, too, and then add in the replacement-level piece at the end.

By EVERYTHING, I mean:

traditional hitting
SB/CS baserunning
other baserunning
position
fielding range
OF throwing arm
double-play turning ability
first base scooping
catcher defense/game-calling/whatever

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 9, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How do you compare?

Well then what method do you use to compare a DH to a position player?

For example, a third baseman and a DH put up identical offensive numbers but the guy on third plays above average defense, so the DH will never be as valuble to his team as the guy on third.

Do we just accept this as being inevitable due to the inherent nature of the DH?

by rivercityredbird on Dec 9, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see why it's a problem...

In your example, why would a DH who hits as well as a good-fielding 3B ever be considered as valuable as that 3B?

I guess, yes, we just accept that since anybody can DH, it’s not a very valuable position, all else being equal. David Ortiz is still quite valuable, because he hits the crap out of the ball. But imagine if he could handle SS. You’d have Alex Rodriguez.

The position adjustment is part of all the stuff that gets added up to produce WAR. Hitting + baserunning + fielding range + other fielding stuff + position = WAR. Some people prefer to look at it as offense and defense, where defense is fielding your position plus your position. Those last two tend to be considered separately, because it’s tough to compare how 2B fields directly to how a CF fields. So we first compare them each to their own positional average, then compare how the average fielders at each position stack up.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 10, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of the time the DH is someone with minor injuries

They’re hobbled enough that they can’t play the field but can still somewhat contribute at the plate. So that affects their offense.

And also explains why teams don’t want a full-time DH. Because then they lose the flexibility of allowing their starters to rotate through the position when they’re hurt/tired. Otherwise they’re down a bench player when that happens – or use the starters as PH – which for some reason teams don’t seem to like to do.

Or so the theory goes. I haven’t really looked into whether that’s true or not.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Dec 7, 2008 4:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs